| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE SEQUENCE with RESTART option |
| Date: | 2021-07-28 06:20:02 |
| Message-ID: | YQD3Eh3kAnJHdL/r@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 04:57:53PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> FWIW, like Ashutosh upthread, my vote would be to do nothing here in
> terms of behavior changes as this is just breaking a behavior for the
> sake of breaking it, so there are chances that this is going to piss
> some users that relied accidentally on the existing behavior.
In short, I would be tempted with something like the attached, that
documents RESTART in CREATE SEQUENCE, while describing its behavior
according to START. In terms of regression tests, there is already a
lot in this area with ALTER SEQUENCE, but I think that having two
tests makes sense for CREATE SEQUENCE: one for RESTART without a
value and one with, where both explicitely set START.
Thoughts?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| create-sequence-restart.patch | text/x-diff | 3.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-07-28 06:22:30 | Re: pg_receivewal starting position |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-07-28 05:02:41 | Re: alter table set TABLE ACCESS METHOD |